ArticleApplied clinical informatics2026
Quality and Usability Evaluation of U.S. Clinical Informatics Fellowship Websites.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Clinical informatics (CI) fellowship programs for physicians in the United States are growing with over 60 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship programs. As a young clinical subspecialty, many have questions about the field; in addition, fellowship eligibility and structure vary significantly. Physicians apply for CI fellowships through Electronic Residency Application Service and the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Match. Fellowship websites are essential resources for prospective applicants to learn about this subspecialty and fellowship programs. Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the usability of CI fellowship program websites listed on the AMIA website. Methods: Forty-two U.S.-based CI fellowship programs were evaluated using web-crawler based usability analysis tools across (1) accessibility, (2) marketing, (3) content quality, (4) technology, and (5) general usability from November 1, 2024, through November 19, 2024. Results: Marketing had the lowest mean score of 5.75 and technology had the highest mean score of 8.44. Content quality had the highest standard deviation (1.58). Conclusion: This analysis established the baseline usability of CI fellowship program websites. Addressing gaps in usability will help with increasing CI fellowship visibility among potential applicants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.